| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Plans for second wind turbine in Morcott turned down after protests
Credit: Rutland & Stamford Mercury | www.stamfordmercury.co.uk 13 September 2012 ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Plans for a second 88ft wind turbine in Morcott have been turned down following protests from residents.
Rutland County Council went against planning officers’ recommendations on Monday night when they refused an application for the wind turbine at Springfield Lodge Farm in North Luffenham Road, Morcott.
The application had been approved in August by the council’s development control and licensing committee but four councillors asked for the application to be discussed by the full council.
Seven councillors on Monday voted in favour of the application but 14 objected to it, saying that the proposal was contrary to a planning document, that the visual impact would be unacceptable in a conservation area and that it would have an unacceptable impact on nearby homes.
Planning officers had said only “limited weight” could be given by councillors to a document the council had drawn up, which objected to wind turbines because it had not yet been approved.
Many people living in Morcott had opposed the development and a petition with 119 signatures and 35 letters of objection were received by the council.
John Judge, of South Luffenham Road, Morcott, was among those who objected to the plans. Objectors said a second turbine would mean “double” the impact on the village.
Mr Judge said: “We were extremely pleased with the outcome of the meeting.
“Whilst I didn’t necessarily agree with all of the points raised by the councillors and the planning officers, it did feel like a full and fair debate and the councillors had clearly listened to the objections and concerns that had been raised by the public.
“We were really concerned that this application would spark a host of other applications for these smaller sized turbines across Rutland and that would be devastating for our rural landscapes.
“I hope that the issues raised in the debate will provide a renewed emphasis to adopt the emerging policy that will give specific guidance on wind turbine applications in the future.”
The applicant Dennis Pridmore was unavailable for comment.
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
| Wind Watch relies entirely on User Funding |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=27953 ]
